Ask Ethan #96: Is the Multiverse science?
Ethan Siegel

“It [multiverse] is a theoretical conjecture, one that makes sense, but it isn’t a scientific theory, and thanks to the limitations of the Universe, it may never be…. Beyond that? After that? Perhaps that’s truly where metaphysics begins, and perhaps that’s where the Multiverse will forever reside.”

Thanks for coming toward to the truth: multiverse is of course not science and is not even a metaphysics.

Metaphysics must consist (be composing) of three parts.

One, it (metaphysics) is the BASE of a TRUE (correct) physics.

Two, it cannot be reached with physics epistemology (if could, it is physics, not metaphysics).

Three, the essence of the conception of God of Christianity is totally incomprehensible, and thus it is religion (not metaphysics). The essence of Zen is totally indescribable (although comprehensible), and again it is religion, not metaphysics. Metaphysics must be both comprehensible and describable, with reason. So, every metaphysics statement must be falsifiable or verifiable with REASON (although not reachable via physics epistemology).

So, if multiverse is metaphysics, it must be falsifiable or verifiable with reasons.

{Note: there are two types of multiverse. The cyclic-multiverse (c-multiverse) is the key point in the book (Super Unified Theory, US copyright TX 1–323–231, issued on April 18, 1984); that is, inflation is only a SHADOW of the c-multiverse. On the other hand, there is parallel-multiverse (p-multiverse, with eternal inflation), which is totally wrong.}

That is, c-multiverse can be easily verified (later). Yet, p-multiverse can be easily falsified with reason, and the following is the quick rundown of these reasons.

R1, p-multiverse (PM) fails to find one universe out from its zillions to be look-like THIS universe. So, PM is totally useless even if it WERE true.

R2, the essence (either as premise or as prediction) of PM is that the nature constants of THIS universe can never be DERIVED, as the nature constants of ALL universes are randomly generated, and the nature constants of THIS universe is just a happenstance. Thus, if we can DERIVE all nature constants of THIS universe, the PM is falsified. In fact, we are able to DERIVE all nature constants of THIS universe (see Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature, ). In those derivations, one of the essence is that all those derivations are bubble-independent.

{Note: when one nature constant (such as Alpha) is derived, ALL nature constants can be derived. More, see }.

The key issue here is all about the understanding the semantic meaning of the term “metaphysics’. I will use your statement as an example about the metaphysics reasoning.

{You (Ethan Siegel) wrote, “The thing is, the Multiverse is not a scientific theory on its own. Rather, it’s a theoretical consequence of the laws of physics as they’re best understood today. It’s perhaps even an inevitable consequence of those laws: if you have an inflationary Universe governed by quantum physics, this is something you’re pretty much bound to wind up with.”}

If your above statement is a metaphysics statement, its REASONING can be outlined as,

P1, PM (parallel-multiverse) is the inevitable consequence of those [physics] laws.

P2, those [physics] laws are ‘deemed’ correct.

P3, PM is the metaphysics of those [physics] laws; that is, PM is true by definition of the term of ‘metaphysics’.

That is, you are trying to weasel PM in as a truth. On the other hand, we can reverse the above metaphysics reasoning to show that those known [physics] laws are not correct when we have showed that PM is totally wrong (not a metaphysics of any kind). Indeed, this is the case.

Three years after the discovery of the 125.4 Gev new boson, the Higgs mechanism is not verified. Again, by showing the way of DERIVING the mass of that new boson, we have showed that Higgs mechanism is totally wrong, see . This example shows that metaphysics is a very powerful TOOL for doing physics.

No, PM (parallel-multiverse) does not make sense; it is totally wrong, absolutely not metaphysics.